Rescue Mission For European Space Industry

metz2000 writes "The New Scientist reports that the European Space Agency (ESA) has pledged hundreds of millions of Euros to guarantee its independent access to space. Europe also looks set to co-operate with the Russian Space Agency. Looks like the space industry is hotting up again. How will NASA react to this news after being the dominant space agency over the past three decades? A lot of money is going into rocket technology also; with this and the 'European version' of GPS are we heading towards a future conflict across the Atlantic?"

Comments

Space is hotting up indeed

[lingqi]

Did y'all know that China has very recently launched it's third navigational satellite, making it possible for china to use its own positional system independently of US / EU / Russia? (three is the minimum for triangulation - if you assume that the triangulated point in space is to be thrown out)

btw, I find it so very amusing that whenever western sources refer to the chinese space program, they just HAVE to add phrase like "secret, military linked," as if NASA is completely independent of the military, or something...

anyhoo. maybe there is still a chance for me to visit mars before I die eh? or some serious possibility of WWIII - as China and EU becomes increasingly suspicious of US... (not unwarrented or anything)

Re:Space is hotting up indeed

[Cyberdyne]

Did y'all know that China has very recently launched it's third navigational satellite, making it possible for china to use its own positional system independently of US / EU / Russia? (three is the minimum for triangulation - if you assume that the triangulated point in space is to be thrown out)

You need three visible satellites for triangulation. Picture the globe, and work out where the satellites would be. Either they're geostationary, clustered over one part (which would give a crude GPS service - over one chunk of the Earth only) or they're not (in which case you can't triangulate anything from them on Earth). You might be able to use them from a lower orbit, though, for positioning satellites; all 3 equidistant GEO satellites would be visible when you're over either pole. Whatever it is, it's not [yet] a GPS rival!

btw, I find it so very amusing that whenever western sources refer to the chinese space program, they just HAVE to add phrase like "secret, military linked," as if NASA is completely independent of the military, or something...

It is independent of the military, actually; the Pentagon did have input in the Shuttle program early on (they wanted to be able to use it for launching and servicing/upgrading spy satellites, which can't be done with a rocket) but these days they launch their own stuff, on rockets from Lockheed Martin. (Built in what Michael Moore claimed in BFC was a "missile factory", as it happens.) NASA probably handle some stuff for the military, still, but most of it is done "in-house" using their own systems - in fact, orbital monitoring is military, with a full-time member of staff to liase with NASA and monitor the status of the Shuttle and ISS.

Hmmm, Interesting

[SkArcher]

With the current problems in the US space program, it may be that the newly fixed Arianne launch system can claim a significant share of the market.

It is important to remember that Arianne is also somewhat cheaper than the Shuttle for any given weight of payload - the shuttles main advantage is that its live crew (which is the reason for the higher cost) can perform and regulate scientific tests.

I await the next Arianne launch with baited breath.

Heavy lifters

[Bombula]

We've seen many articles we've recently about space, including the recent Shuttle tragedy and the successful launch of the Mars Express, as well as the X-prize. Throughout, I continue to see an emphasis on the importance of reusable equipment. Can someone give a comprehensive explanation for why lifting technology needs to be reusable?

It seems like 30 years ago we did pretty well with expendable rockets. Since each shuttle mission costs hundreds of millions, is it really worth it? Why not invest in the development of a 'cheap' single-use lifting technology, like a successor for Soyuz? Even if each rocket cost $100 million wouldn't it still save lots of money, and wouldn't it mean much larger payloads could be delivered?

Re:Heavy lifters

[Ex-MislTech]

They want to get the cost per kilogram/pound down .

They want to launch more often, and this idea
will get them clear of the air traffic lanes .

Just position this out over the pacific high
above any storm systems reach .

I think a high altitude rail gun platform would work
nicely to get cargo into space .

It would not work for ppl, as it would pull so many G's
it would kill them .

Some tested rail guns have hit Mach 120+ in the low earth
atmosphere with all its friction .

At 160,000 feet using high altitude balloon tech to build
a suspended launch platform you could fire a rail gun
to launch cylinders into space with needed materials .

Getting ppl into space would require a more conventional means,
but the cargo has always been the heavier portion .

www.21stcenturyairships.com has already got working prototype
ballons working at near 70,000 feet .

NASA set a world record for a ballon at 161,000 feet , so it
can be done , 32 miles up would be a good head start .

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020 82 7063353.htm

These guys could provide the balloon logistics :

http://www.andyelson.com/proj_theedgeofspace.htm

With 99% of the earth's atmosphere out of the way, a high power
rail gun shooting something at speeds in excess of mach 120
would get it to the moon with NO PROBLEM .

Less atmosphere, less friction, less gravity .

Building a space elevator sounds cool, but cost is
prohibitive and the logistics sound VERY scary .

The link to the world's fastest rail gun is

http://www.totse.com/en/technology/science_techn ol ogy/railway.html

use CTRL+F and then enter "fastest" for your search .

speed of sound at sea level is 330 yds/sec, they achieved
39,991M/sec .

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

Re:Heavy lifters

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Yep. My father, who also worked on Apollo (yes, Daddy really did send men to the Moon -- decades later, I still get a little-kid jolt out of that idea), Skylab, and Viking, left the aerospace industry in disgust during the early stages of the Shuttle program. He said it was heartbreaking how things kept getting scaled down; the engineers knew the administration was being penny-wise and pound-foolish, but they couldn't do anything about it.

A Good Thing (TM) for the Space Industry

[stoborrobots]

This may just be a good thing for the space industry in general...

Didn't the really great advances in space travel come about because of the intellectual battle between the US and the Soviet Union?

If the ESA starts making inroads into space research and NASA wants to keep its top position, it will be forced to become really competitive, and this might mean that we will see missions which *succeed*!!!

Or we may just see more missions, with more cut corners... :-(

Re:European GPS

[CausticWindow]

And "eruo-gps" is supposed to be hundred percent commercial. If the military want to use it, they'll have to pay like everybody else.

How's that for free market, US?

no need to keep 100% accurate local time

[lingqi]

I was always under the impression that even with three satellites, you would be able to use the GPS signal to correct your local clock.

Few reasons for this, IIRC:

1) all three satellites are keeping perfect time, so if your clock is off, it is very easy to compensate for.

2) satellites transmit positional information - this can be compared with your local positional table to correct your local time

Besides the point - since details are sketchy, they might even be using dual-band per satellite to compensate for atmospheric delay errors.

Of course, i might be talking out of my ass - so if you have evidence backing up what you say, prove me wrong.

Re:First!

[splateagle]

Most european countries just purchase American or Russian military vehicles and weapons anyway.

Pretty sweeping unsupported statement that, you might want to look at EADS before making any more blind assumptions there... That said I think you're missing the point.

The first space race might have been driven by the military, but if there is to be a second race between ESA and NASA I imagine it'll most likely be driven more by developments in civil aerospace.

Arianespace are hardly a minor global player, neither are Airbus. While admitedly they've yet to show a direct interest in space flight, they are part of EADS and given Boeing's development, it's unimaginable that Airbus hasn't got it's eye on space at some point in the future...

As it stands the ESA have already been working with NASA and the remnants of the old soviet space agency (calling it "Russian" is confusing, since Russia is in Europe) and I expect that they'll continue doing just that, the Space Station is after all an International venture, not just an American thing.

Race or not, this news seems to suggest that (as happened with civil aviation technology in the later years of last century,) Europe might be about to take the dominant role in Space technology now... maybe. Should be interesting anyway, and anything that drives us forward globally has to be a good thing.

Few problems, many positives

[Logopop]

First of all, I see no future 'conflict'. There are many players here besider the US, and the International Space Station shows us that we have no problems besides technical to cooperate when it comes to space exploration (except maybe Russian funding). Both the Chinese and the Japanese have programs with great momentum.
The system redundancy argument is a good one. I am sure that there's a lot of obscure politics involved, but technically speaking I am looking forward to being able to utilize a GPS receiver that can correlate the results from two independent systems. There were receivers that did that with GLONASS, I don't know if that system is still operable.
Competition is of course good, however I think that the potential for commercial competition is fairly slim for the time being due to the high cost of anything space related and that you can't 'claim' resources in space like you do on earth (AFAIK).
All in all - the more people/equipment/systems we can bring out into space, the easier it will be to colaborate and go 'where no man has gone before'. Manned mission to Mars, anyone?

-Kris

Rail Gun system coming

[Ex-MislTech]

For many years the military and other agencies have been looking to
put payload in space with a rail gun as a launchor assisted launch .
A variation on that theme would be a high altitude platform using
something like www.21stcenturyairships.com to lift the cargo to
near 100,000 ft , then use the rail gun to kick start it and if a
heavy payload fire a booster as well . The first 20 miles of flight would be eliminated .
A series of MANY of these balloons could be used to hold the launch
platform up and the tremendous cargo .
If you run it all with remote control robots, you do not need
to worry about life support systems on the launching pad .
Also you use remote control robots to build your space station,
and do your repairs up in space .
Solar power in space is not filtered by the earth's atmosphere,
there is ALOT more watts per sq. meter up there .
Imagine the work that could be done with no need for food and
water, no need for atmosphere , and protected enclosure for the
repair robots .
If the chinese are smart when they go to build their base on the
moon they will start it out unmanned and built by robots ,
the logistics are just SOOOO much cheaper than trying to keep
humans alive and sane in deep space .
Once they have a large Teraformed cavern underground on the moon
then test it for problems over a period of time , with redundant
systems and escape pod like rescue vehicles . Test it with robots .
The majority of the moon base being underground would be shielded
against meteors , and cosmic radiation .
The dark side of the moon could be used to acquire cooling for
machinery and computers, etc etc .
The light side could be used for a permanent solar farm .
Robots coming back and plugging into the grid when they get
low or redundant battery packs get switched out by battery
serving bots that change one pack at a time and every robot
has two or three, lol .
Once we get a moon base, we have a MUCH cheaper launching
platform than the earth . Less Gravity, no atmosphere
burning you up , and no wind shear .
Then wash, rinse and repeat for mars, pretty simple plan and
we have already sent a tiny robot there .
Just send a larger one and start rail gunning cargo from the
moon base , the cargo goes into orbit around mars and is picked
up by the space station there and then sent down to the surface
by the bouncing ball airbag method used by path finder .
The airbag material can be saved and reused for other needs
once humans arrive once the base is built and safely tested .
Once again an underground base using the heat from the core of
mars would keep the underground base somewhat liveable .
Solar power on mars would not be that good, would need an
alternative like geo-thermal .
For safety reasons the drilling should be a great distance from
the mars base in case a geological problem is let loose similar
to a kick experienced when drilling here in north america .
Run the geo thermal power plant with robots, and have it
beyond a ridge or mountain to protect the colony from
any possible disasters .
A large low light garden would be needed to turn CO2 into O@
to breathe , and provide food , enriched soil with bacteria
would have to be sent to the moon and mars .
How mars bacteria and earth bacteria interact could be dangerous,
another reason to test it with robots for some time .
The big dig in boston has made underground earth works much
cheaper, this tech would be perfect for mars, just implementing
it all the distance aways would be VERY hard .
Due to delay a LARGE space ship/station would need to be built
in orbit best from the moon base, then travel to mars
and ppl could remote control the mars robots from orbit .

Ok I am really rambling here ... my apologies ...

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

Re:Some prospective

[joestar]

Your comment makes me think nobody should trust any statement in comments unless checking the information!

The Galileo project has been really launched now. It's a project funded by different partners (*including* ESA) : European Commision, ESA, European Investment Bank and other smaller partners to come. The goal of Galileo is double : 1) get rid of our current dependency towards the american military GPS system for strategic reasons and because there are reliability issues with the GPS (in particular for civil planes) 2) offer a better system (better precision in localization), primarily for civil usage (but not only) and make money from that.

Galileo's price is 3.2 billions Euros which is roughly the price for building 150 kilometers of semi-urban motorway.

All these informations were taken from the official Galileo website at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/gal ileo/index.htm

Re:Cooperation

[TheCaptain]

Actually, what makes me wonder, is why the Russian, European AND American space agencies don't work together on this stuff more - the very tone of the posting "How will NASA react?" tells me NASA probably wasn't even invited to the party. I am not saying they all need to be involved in everything each other do...but why this tone? (Making NASA sound like they are somehow in the defensive?) The tone of the writing only serves to try to foster a little mutual paranoia...rather childish actually, and certainly not helpful.

Anyways...I thought the EU was all about international cooperation and getting along. I am glad NASA and the ESA cooperate as much as they already do...they should likely do more. I seriously doubt NASA has a problem with working with other agencies abroad...